People v.

Manansala
G.R. No. 175939, April 3, 2013
Judgment
Rule 120 Section 5 (When an Offense Includes or is Included in
another)
FACTS: On October 18, 1994 the PNP-Olongapo City conducted a test-buy
operation against Manansala, a suspected dealer of marijuana. On the same
date, following the test-buy, the PNP applied for and obtained a search
warrant from the RTC-Olongapo City to authorize the search for and seizure of
prohibited drugs in Manansalas residence located at No. 55 Johnson
Extension, Barangay East Bajac Bajac, Olongapo City. SPO4 Bolina and other
elements of the PNP, accompanied by the Barangay Chairman conducted the
search of Manansalas house at around 5:30 a.m. the next day. The search
yielded the 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves subject of the information,
which the search team recovered from a wooden box placed inside a cabinet.
Also seized was the amount of PhP 655.00 that included the two marked PhP
50.00 bills used during the test buy.
All the seized articles were inventoried, and Manansala himself signed the
certification to that effect, along with his father, Jose Manansala, and
Barangay Captain Manalang. The certification listed the following seized
articles:
1) one kilo, more or less, of suspected dried marijuana leaves;
2) rolling paper;
3) money amounting to PhP 655.00
SPO4 Bolina and his team brought Manansala to Camp Cabal in Olongapo
City, where they turned over the seized articles to the evidence custodian,
SPO2 Sapad. At around 8:20 a.m. of October 20, 1994, the seized articles
were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando,
Pampanga for qualitative examination.
The PNP Crime Laboratory later issued Technical Report with findings on
qualitative examination that the specimen gave POSITIVE result for
marijuana. Manansala pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, First Asst. City Prosecutor Manalansan filed a motion for the
admission of an amended information, ostensibly to modify the offense
charged from illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425
to illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of the same law. But
the RTC did not act on the motion.
Nonetheless, the trial proceeded, with the Prosecution establishing the
matters earlier summarized. In his turn, Manansala denied the charge,
alleging that he had been the victim of a frame-up stating that military men
clad in civilian attire arrived at his house and arrested him without any
warrant, and brought him to an office he referred to simply as S2, then to a
club located on Magsaysay Street in Olongapo City known as Dorris 2. His

captors mugged and then detained him when he refused to admit the sale
and possession of marijuana. They turned down his request to be brought to
a hospital for the treatment of the injuries he thereby sustained. As of the
time of his testimony, he conceded that he could not identify his captors and
whoever had maltreated him, except SPO4 Bolina whom he recognized in
court when the latter testified at the trial.
The RTC convicted Manansala for illegal possession of marijuana in violation
of Section 8 of R.A. 6425, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The crime charged in the information was a violation of Section 4 of R.A.
6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which provides:
Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any such
transactions.
Arraigned under such information, Manansala pleaded not guilty to it. But
instead of finding him guilty of the crime charged after trial, the RTC
convicted him for a violation of Section 8 of the same law.
Section 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized
by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the provisions of
Section 20 hereof.
On appeal, Manansala assigned as one of the reversible errors committed by
the RTC that the trial court had erred in convicting him for illegal possession
of prohibited drugs on the misplaced and inaccurate theory that the offense
of illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 8 was necessarily
included in the offense of illegal sale of marijuana in violation of Section 4.
The Information to which accused pleaded "not guilty" charges that accused
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly engage in selling, delivering, giving away
to another and distributing, falling under the more embracing term known as
"drug pushing". The alleged act of allegedly knowingly selling or pushing
prohibited drugs by the accused was however, not sufficiently proven. The
member of the team who is alleged to have acted as a poseur-buyer of the
illegal stuff from the accused was not presented as a witness, hence, the
testimony of SPO4 Bolina, to the effect that during the surveillance conducted
prior to the application of the search warrant, a member of the team acting
as poseur buyer was able to buy marijuana from the accused, cannot be
given weight, being hearsay.
However, the fact that the enforcing team where witness Bolina is a member,

was able to find marijuana leaves in the custody, possession and control of
the accused, in the course of the enforcement of the search warrant and has
been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, without
controversion but the denial of the accused, which like alibi, is the weakest
defense, the trial court was convinced that accused is guilty instead of
violating Section 8, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended, a crime
that is necessarily included in the crime of drug pushing or dealing, for which
the accused have been charged with. In light of these circumstances, the RTC
has no option that to find accused guilty and liable for the crime proved.
Since the date of the commission of the crime as proved is October 19, 1994,
the provisions of R.A. 7659, in so far as the imposable penalty is concerned,
will find application.
On intermediate appeal, the CA reviewed the conviction and affirmed with
modification the decision of the lower court. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the unlawful sale of marijuana penalized under
Section 4 of R.A. 6425 necessarily includes the crime of unlawful possession
thereof under Section 8 of the same law
HELD: Yes.
Indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of marijuana, a
prohibited drug, is the submission of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took
place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The element of sale
must be unequivocally established in order to sustain a conviction. In this
case, the trial court correctly held that the prosecution failed to establish,
much less adduce proof, that accused was indeed guilty of the offense of
illegal sale of marijuana. But it is beyond doubt that he was found in
possession of the same.
While no conviction for the unlawful sale of prohibited drugs may be had
under the present circumstances, the established principle is that possession
of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not
covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some
future dealings or use by the seller. In this case, it has been satisfactorily
ascertained that the bricks of marijuana confiscated from accused were the
same prohibited drugs subject of the original Information. In this light, we find
that the court a quo committed no reversible error in convicting the accusedappellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 8, Article II
of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
Again, it should be stressed that the crime of unlawful sale of marijuana
penalized under Section 4 of R.A. 6425 necessarily includes the crime of
unlawful possession thereof. As borne by the records, it has been sufficiently
proven beyond any doubt that the lawful search conducted at the house of
the accused yielded a total of 764.045 grams marijuana dried leaves as
verified by the PNP Forensic Chemist. Thus, on the face of the positive

testimony of the prosecution witness and the presentation of the corpus

delicti, it is indubitable that a crime had in fact been committed and that
accused-appellant was the author of the same.
It is as prevailing doctrine that the illegal sale of marijuana absorbs the illegal
possession of marijuana, except if the seller was also apprehended in the
illegal possession of another quantity of marijuana not covered by or not
included in the illegal sale, and the other quantity of marijuana was probably
intended for some future dealings or use by the accused.
The elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, are as follows: (1) the
accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew
that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. Although not
epressly stated, delivery is given stress, which implies prior possession of the
prohibited drugs. Sale of a prohibited drug can never be proven without
seizure and identification of the prohibited drug, affirming that possession is a
condition sine qua non.
It being established that illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily
included in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court will thus determine
appellants culpability under Section 8.
From the penal provision under consideration and from the cases adjudicated,
the elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.
The involvement of a single object in both the illegal sale as the crime
charged and the illegal possession as the crime proved is indispensable, such
that only the prohibited drugs alleged in the information to be the subject of
the illegal sale is considered competent evidence to support the conviction of
the accused for the illegal possession. As such, the illegal possession is either
deemed absorbed by or is considered a necessary element of the illegal sale.
On the other hand, any other illegal substance found in the possession of the
accused that is not part of the subject of the illegal sale should be prosecuted
under a distinct and separate information charging illegal possession;
otherwise, the fundamental right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him would be flagrantly violated.
The illegal possession of marijuana was "a crime that is necessarily included
in the crime of drug pushing or dealing, for which the accused have been
charged with." The right of Manansala to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him was not violated simply because the
information had precisely charged him with selling, delivering, giving away
and distributing more or less 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Thereby,
he was being sufficiently given notice that he was also to be held to account
for possessing more or less 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. The crime
of illegal sale of marijuana defined and punished under Section 4 of R.A. No.
6425, as amended, implied the prior possession of the marijuana. As such,

the crime of illegal sale included or absorbed the crime of illegal possession.
The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence,
and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is
charged. According to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court, the rule then
applicable, an offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved,
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is
alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.
The Court AFFIRMED the decision.
RATIO: Rule 120 Section 5. When an Offense Includes or is Included
in another. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense
proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or
form part of those constituting the latter.